"Hampton, Nathan E." wrote:

> Then, you always drive the speed limit? Is going over the speed limit
> immoral or is it just more risky when you see a patrol car?

Bad example.  Speed limits are only a "guide",  ... like when I lived in
Atlanta and all the interstate limits inside cities were 55 and the median
speed on the interstate in Atlanta was 69.  All the Southern folks knew it
was merely a guide.


> I wouldn't consider what the government does (in enforcement or in
> making of laws) any part of defining morality. Particularly here, the
> separation of church and state is important ;)

I don't think it's the role of government to codify laws covering every
consideration of morality.  Some part of our social contract should be
governed by rules which are not reduced to law or subject to law
enforcement.  We should also not be codifying things which are solely
sourced in religious belief.

And we need to understand the consequences of proposed laws:  if you outlaw
lutefisk, only outlaws will have lutefisk.


> How is immoral defined? By the outside (rs) looking in or by the person
> on the inside who has to look outside to evaluate the benefits and costs
> of an action?

I decided to define it by considering how the individual needs to function
so that the society works to produce the optimum product for the shared
benefit of all, which can only be achieved as a group if all the members
contribute their necessary shares "morally", "responsibly", "cooperatively",
whatever.   That model's easier to handle for a hypothetical stockade of 13
pilgrims in the New World wilderness than for a stockade of 280 million.

boB